If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There is no need to "pin me down", as I have
gone to great lengths to be clear in my
statements. Like Horton The Elephant, "I said
what I said, and I meant what I meant."

&gt; is it your view that 19 day emergence in 4.9mm
&gt; cells is on par with UFO's and ghosts?

My view of the phenomena itself is irrelevant.

My view of the work done so far to back up the
claims that such "shorter capping times" have any
impact on varroa infestation rates is that it
has been little better than the "research" done
on UFO's, et al.

&gt; I begin to think your aim here is just to try
&gt; and goad others to support their claims by
&gt; getting them worked up.

No, my goal is to convince people that they are
capable of doing "publication-quality work", or
at least making it easier for a card-carrying
researcher to do the work by supplying some
existing "turn-key" small cell hives on loan.

If some people get all worked up, it is only
because they get defensive whenever someone dares
suggest that either sufficient proof does not yet
exist, and/or is required in a specific format
with which they have never attempted to comply.

&gt; Tell me again why you don't check it yourself
&gt; and show these yahoos how it's supposed to be
&gt; done?

Like every other legitimate researcher on the
planet, I have no small-cell bees.

I also have no interest in investing the time to
"downsize" bees on pure speculation, mostly
because any results that would result from such
an approach would be dismissed by the small-cell
community as "due to my incorrect methods" in
the mechanics of the downsizing itself.

&gt; Don't say you don't have time--I read that
&gt; thread on candle-feezing.

I don't have the time. Educational efforts
(like the candle thread... or was it a "wick"?)
are part of the reason I don't have time.

Another reason is that it is spring, and I have
hives to work. Beekeeping is like shaving - if
you don't do it every day, you become a bum. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I honestly think that the only answer to getting
some results that are acceptable to all sides of
the "debate" is for a small-cell beekeeper to
loan hives to a researcher and/or participate in
the project, so that the hives to be studied can
be confirmed to meet the small-cell advocates'
definition of a "small-cell hive".

But no one seems to want to embrace this approach,
as it would force the issue, and result in data
that could not be rejected by the small-cell
community, if it turned out to be a less-than
glowing evaluation.

To summarize, no one wants to "put up", and we
certainly can't expect them to shut up.

&gt; It may or may not be irrelevant but you could
&gt; still answer the question.

OK, my (personal) view is that it needs looking at,
as the mechanism for limiting varroa reproduction
should be "easy to see", and "easy to verify".
Something simple like a dozen ob hives, each with
a small one-comb colony, like the ones Wyatt
Mangum runs, and some introduced varroa would be
sufficient, as capping times and varroa reproduction
rates are well-known for the usual case.

&gt; Maybe you could give us a list of all the papers
&gt; on beekeeping you've published.

&gt;&gt;Maybe it can be summed up this way. A biologic beekeeper uses bee biology to justify his management and equipment choices. A non-biologic beekeeper uses his equipment to justify his understanding of bee behavior.

Well put, Dennis. Would that this were more widely understood.

And Michael, your patience and clarity is admirable.

Some others: this forum is a most valuable resource. Could we keep the discussions friendly and focus more on sharing information and less on scoring points?

Empirical observation is sufficient to prove that something occurs. It is not sufficent to prove why it occurs.

In this case, it is easily proven that bees on small cell survive mite infestation better than bees on large cell. Just observe bees on small cell for several years without miticide treatments.

In part, I think Jim is burping about the statement that the survival is because of shorter development time. I could equally state that its due to genetics and that the bees on small cell have traits that control the mites. This again is easily proven empirically by moving small cell bees back onto large cell comb and observing their demise from mite related problems.

In a similar case, Brother Adam described tracheal mite tolerance as a mechanism that works even though we don't know exactly how it works. Regardless of understanding how it works, we can make use of it because it is empirically provable that tracheal mite tolerant bees survive and susceptible bees die.

I suspect that small cell comb will be a similar case. We don't have to understand why it works to make use of it. All that is necessary is to prove empirically that it DOES WORK.

I think the discussion tends to drift towards the complex and particular needlessly, while we have a much more basic and simple statement that is so easily provable as to be grade-school stuff.

"In this case, it is easily proven that bees on small cell survive mite infestation better than bees on large cell. Just observe bees on small cell for several years without miticide treatments."

That is not easy to prove at all, as it takes years and an investment of time and bees. Why don't we start with baby-steps. Does the bee in a smaller cell (not the supposed genetic or regressed "small-cell bee," but ANY bee) emerge quicker than bees in large cells. This doesn't require special hives or "small cell bees" or anything else, just about a month of observation on natural comb (which anyone can see has a wide range of sizes.) If they do, then we go on from there, with a lot of mathematical wind at our backs. If they do, then it would be surprising in the extreme if this DIDN'T have an impact on varroa populations.

Some others: this forum is a most valuable resource. Could we keep the discussions friendly and focus more on sharing information and less on scoring points?

I agree that things should be friendly, but I think it may be a relative term depending upon the circumstances and the participants.

Watching a couple of old plow horses headed back to the barn together as fast as their fat butts will move is one thing. Nothing particularly inspiring about that. Standing on the rail at Churchhill Downs when the best thoroughbreds in the world thunder past is a bit different. Sometimes it's worth it to give them their heads and stand back.

Nobody ruins my day without my permission, and I refuse to grant it...

&gt; We don't have to understand why it works to make
&gt; use of it. All that is necessary is to prove
&gt; empirically that it DOES WORK.

OK, we are making progress. At least we agree
that some sort of proof would be an improvement
over where we are now.

But the way that one most often proves that
something "works" is by setting up conditions that
clearly contrast the mechanism at work against
identical conditions where the mechanism is
clearly NOT at work.

This reminds me of a friend who had a very old
Volvo P130. She would turn the key, it would
catch and then die. She would say a short
prayer, turn the key, and the car would start.

While she did not offer this as some sort of
proof of the power of prayer in enhancing the
performance of internal combustion engines,
I had the opportunity to start her car one
day, and went through the same process, but
without bothering God over such a trivial
matter. I also was able to start the car,
and I later fixed the sticky carb linkage
that was the source of the problem.

So you want the right answer to the right
question rather than the right answer to
the wrong question.

Then we can say we've advanced the state of the
art a bit, but not until.

Jim-- do regular bees in smaller cells emerge sooner or not? Focus like a laser beam. Channel spirits. Signal the UFO's. Do what you like. But humor me and answer that simple question. That is the right question for right now. What is the right answer?

&gt;&gt; I begin to think your aim here is just to try
&gt;&gt; and goad others to support their claims by
&gt;&gt; getting them worked up.

&gt;No, my goal is to convince people that they are
&gt;capable of doing "publication-quality work"

&gt; I begin to think your aim here is just to try
&gt; and goad others to support their claims by
&gt; getting them worked up.

No, my goal is to convince people that they are
capable of doing "publication-quality work"

Main Entry: 1goad
Pronunciation: 'gOd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English gode, from Old English gAd spear, goad; akin to Langobardic gaida spear, and perhaps to Sanskrit hinoti he urges on
1 a : something that pricks like a goad : THORN b : something that urges or stimulates into action : SPUR
2 : a pointed rod used to urge on an animal
synonym see MOTIVE

&gt;OK, we are making progress. At least we agree
&gt;that some sort of proof would be an improvement
&gt;over where we are now.

Hummm.... I've done it for me, but not for 'we'.:&gt) But then my responsibility only lies with me and not we.

I've counted natural mite fall from my small cell hives and posted the results. I've taken the same small cell bees, that have prospered without mite treatments, and put them back on clean, large cell comb, in the same beeyard with the remaining small cell colonies. They developed mite problems and required treatment at the end of the first season, while the small cell colonies, in the same yard needed none. I put those large cell bees back on small cell comb and they haven't required any treatment since! That's more than proof enough for me.

Now you know that I don't subscribe to much of the small cell theory about small cell bees and beekeeping. I wouldn't suggest that anyone actually regress their bees, but I would suggest that everyone get a small cell core in the broodnest. I know that bees, on small cell comb, are mite tolerant.

And I know that it isn't bee specific as all the varieties I've tried have performined with in the same range. That includes Strachan NWC and Russian, Weaver Buckfast and All American and Harbo, Miska Italian and Carniolan, Koehnen Italian, Lusbee, Bolling Caucasion, USDA Russian, Glenn Russian and Carniolan, Glenn-Spivak Italian and my own mutts. Sorry if I forgotten anyone, I think I might have.

It's interesting to note that most small cell beekeepers don't even bother discussing the mite situation once they get some bees on small cell. The information is out there. Instead, their discussions focus on bee selection, breeding, etc. Mites quickly become a non-issue.

After four years on small cell, I filled a dumpster with mite related stuff, including all those files, reports, chems, etc. It's amazing how much time, and mental energy I've spent on the mite issue. And it's amazing how much time and energy are available for other beekeeping things, once the mites become a non-issue. I don't even glance at mite articles, etc. in the bee mags. That makes some of them really thin.

There are many things in my life that I utilize and learn to operate, with very little real understanding and proof of their workings. Yet, I know they do. Things like light, gravity, life, my body, internal combustion, the ways of a woman, small cell,etc.:&gt)) I'm just a beekeeper.

Half of the fun is finding out what works and the other half is finding out why. The whats are usually found through serendipity and the whys through lots of hard work.

Some Comments
Dennis
Thinking I like a good discussion, as I now, have more time. :&gt))

I once wrangled bees. But now, I know better, so I do better.Bee Natural

O.K. I've done the experiment and I have nine results of each of larger and smaller cells. Of nine marked worker cells on the portion of natural comb with the smallest size (I haven't measured what sizes we are talking about, just the smallest and largest on a particular comb) the average emergence was 457 hours-with the lowest at 442 hours (observed laying and emergence on that one), very much at the lower end of Michael's observation. Nine marked cells on the largest part higher up on the comb averaged 486 hours with the shortest at 472 hours. I saw the actual laying on 11 of the 18 final cells, and the emergence on 4 of the 18. Bees seem to follow the "watched pot never boils" rule, as I sat there through four movies (a good 6 hours) and only saw those 4.

Good enough results for me to actually set this up a little more precisely and try to document it. It begins to look pretty clear that cell size probably does affect emergence, at least with the climatic conditions I had going on at this time. I'm building a special semi-observation hive for the next test.

Am I wasting my time? Is it already accepted that cell size affects emergence? No one seems to answer when I ask this.

I don't think you're wasting your time - at the very minimum you will have proven to yourself whether or not cell size affects the time it takes for an egg to turn into an adult bee.

I have already accepted this to be so because a few people that I trust have done what you are doing and shared the results with us. I do plan, however, to someday build an observation hive and observe this phenomenon myself because I think I would enjoy it!

And any timeline of Varroa reproduction will show you that there will be less Varroa in 457 hours than in 486 hours. That's 29 hours difference on the average on your test and we don't even know the size of the cells, just that they were smaller and larger. That amount of time is enough to make a significant difference in the number of Varroa.